Table 2.
Follow-up funding survey means, standard deviations, and frequencies (N = 17)
| Question | Face-to-face (N = 12) | Virtual (N = 5) | Total (N = 17) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effectiveness—enhance success in obtaining grants | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) |
| How helpful was the feedback given by the IDW attendees? | 4.17 (.94) | 4.40 (.55) | 4.24 (.83) |
| Did you modify your grant proposal at all using the feedback given by attendees at the IDW? | 2.25 (.75) | 2.60 (.89) | 2.35 (.79) |
| N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |
| How many times have you submitted this proposal you presented? | |||
| 0 | 4 (33.3 %) | 0 (0 %) | 4 (23.5 %) |
| 1 | 8 (66.7 %) | 3 (60 %) | 11 (64.7 %) |
| 2 | 0 (0 %) | 2 (40 %) | 2 (11.8 %) |
| How many of these submissions occurred after the IDW? | |||
| 0 | 3 (25 %) | 0 (0 %) | 3 (17.6 %) |
| 1 | 9 (75 %) | 4 (80 %) | 13 (76.5 %) |
| 2 | 0 (0 %) | 1 (20 %) | 1 (5.9 %) |
| Was your proposal ultimately funded? | |||
| Yes | 4 (33.3 %) | 2 (40 %) | 6 (35.3 %) |
| No | 5 (41.7 %) | 2 (40 %) | 7 (41.2 %) |
| Not yet funded, plan to resubmit | 3 (25 %) | 1 (20 %) | 4 (23.5 %) |
| M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | |
| If your proposal was funded, how much do you believe the IDW feedback impacted funding of your proposal? | 2.50 (.58) | 3.50 (.71) | 2.83 (.75) |
| If your proposal was not funded, how much do you believe the IDW feedback made your proposal more competitive? | 2.29 (.95) | 2.50 (.71) | 2.33 (.87) |
| Acceptability | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) |
| Based on your experience, would you present another grant proposal at a future IDW? | |||
| Yes | 10 (83.3 %) | 5 (100 %) | 15 (88.2 %) |
| No | 2 (16.7 %) | 0 (0.%) | 2 (11.8 %) |
| Structure/facilitation process | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) |
| How helpful was it having the notes of feedback sent to you? | 4.33 (.49)* | 3.20 (.84)* | 4.00 (.79) |
Note. * p < 0.05